In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants (1914)

Record Details:

Title:
In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants
Date:
1914
Publisher:
New York, Appeal Printing Co.
Volume:
In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants : record volume 5
Leaf #:
000116
Language:
English
Collection:
Government & Law and Early Cinema
Format:
Periodicals
Contributor:
The Museum of Modern Art Library, New York
Sponsor:
Media History Digital Library
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
These seven volumes contain the testimonies and supporting documents from the U.S. District Court's antitrust lawsuit against the Motion Picture Patents Company (MPPC). Formed in 1908, the MPPC (sometimes referred to asœ"the Edison Trust" or just "the Trust") sought to control the American film industry through pooling patents and demanding that producers and exhibitors acquire licenses to those patents. Independent producers and exhibitors, who refused to license the patents, argued that the MPPC was an unlawful monopoly. In 1912 and 1913, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania heard testimonies from both MPPC members, such as Siegmund Lubin, and "Independents" who later became Hollywood moguls, such as William Fox. Ultimately, in 1915, the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which found the MPPC in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and spelled the end for the already weakening MPPC. -- Eric Hoyt, 2012
Date Added:
September 21, 2023
Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

25GG Fred C. Aiken, Redirect Examination. pictures of the unlicensed manufacturers and importers? A. I would be unable definitely to state as to that. Q. Well, it would practically have meant the end of your old list of customers and required you to start with a new list, wouldn't it? A. I would not consider it in that way at all, on account of one or two other exchanges around there whose licenses were cancelled, or they withdrew, and they continued in business, and they did not lose all their customers. Q. When you were doing business in 1908 and 1907 as a rental exchange, the films were always sent to you in the manner the business is done to-day, that is, shipped to the exchanges from the factories of the different manufacturers? A. Yes, sir. Q. What per cent, of the gross receipts of your rental exchange, in the year 1908, consisted of the rentals for the use of the films? A. I would consider about 95 per cent. Q. In the rental exchange business, it has always been true, has it not, that the rental of the films has constituted practically all the business of the exchange? A. The greater percentage of it. Redirect examination by Mr. Caldwell: Q. Mr. Aiken, at the time you sold your exchange to the General Film Company, did you regard the exchange business as a stable one? A. No, sir, I did not. Q. Did the fact that you might have or would have competition with the General Film Company in Chicago, constitute the sole reason that induced you to sell? A. No, sir, it was one of the reasons. Q. Was that the principal reason, if there was any reason, that operated on your mind more than another? A. Yes, sir, there were two particular reasons. One was the price that was offered to me, and the other was, that I was really getting tired of the business, in the condition that it was in at that time. We were making less money every year that we were in business. That is, after 1908. We made most of our money in 1908, and the conditions were such that I was very glad to sell out at the price that was offered. Q. It was a theatrical business? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you knew at the time, did vou not, or did you